Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 11/25/2025. Claims 1-2 and 4 are pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 3 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 8-10, Applicant argues the claims do not recite the alleged commercial or legal interaction (business relations). The Examiner strongly disagrees the claims recite determining an available space, reserving an event space based on desired constraints, and arranging transportation for desired materials (like for example supplies or food for a meeting) from an available entity based on the reservation, which is business relations. This relates to business relations, as the above discloses and recites a business relationship of serving and providing products from one entity to another. Business relations are in the enumerated groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity, and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 9 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues the amended limitation of “controlling a drive device of the selected delivery robot to perform automated driving of the selected delivery robot from the material center to the delivery destination with the requested material, based on the delivery execution instruction” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. It is noted that the limitation of “upon receipt of the delivery execution instruction” has been amended out of the claims in this claim set.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is a method of organizing human activities step to drive an item (requested material) from one location (material center) to another (delivery destination) based on delivery instructions (delivery execution instructions) as broadly recited in the claims. The additional elements that these method of organizing human steps are instead broadly recited as being performed by a “robot” by a “drive device” and that the driving is “automated” merely results in apply it level claiming. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, rather in the claim instead the additional limitations provided above recite only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” The claims do not recite improvements to computers like robots, automated driving, or controlling drive devices here rather here they are just being used to broadly implement the above abstract idea.
Further limitations that recite the method of organizing human activity steps are instead being performed as broadly recited in the claims by “robots” by a “drive device” and instead of a user driving the material this is “automated” by the robots, merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
On remarks pages 10-12, Applicant argues the 103 rejection. Specifically Applicant argues that the request for a retail location does not include any information regarding goods requested by customers from retailers. While the Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments here, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not require such an interpretation argued by Applicant here. Rather the claims are broader as previously discussed in the Non-Final Office Action page 17. Specifically Porter teaches establishing a short term lease of a pop up at a retail location, e.g. where a user can request a facility (see paragraphs 0064, 0067, 0074, and 0126). Porter goes on to teach that the robot picks up items ordered by a user and delivers them to a customer at a location (see paragraphs 0040 and 0047). It is noted that the claims broadly recite “reservation request data” which can include information requested at different times that is at some later time after it is sent is aggregated and performed by the system. There is no requirement here in the claims that all request information is collected on for example one interface, collected at one single point in time, or that all the information is sent in one transmission from the user device. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further such an interpretation is even consistent with Applicant’s own claim language as the request facility reserved and where the requested material is delivered can be different in the two argued determining steps, e.g. “data on a requested facility wished by the user” and “data on a delivery destination of the requested material”
Therefore the Examiner interprets the system of Porter where users request and reserve facilitates (see paragraphs 0064, 0067, 0074, and 0126) and robots provide materials or purchased products to users at specific locations (see paragraphs 0040 and 0047), to read on the claims, as currently recited.
If Applicant were to amend the claims, to further define such argued distinctions, Examiner in the efforts of compact prosecution, notes the following refences:
-Webb et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0173314) paragraph 0073 and Figures 8 show/teaches multiple reservations being processed in one transaction request
- Kanai (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2001/0047313) teaches an interface with multiple reservations where the user may interactively interact with one or more multiple reservations (see paragraph 0165 and Figure 14)
Examiner notes here the above references are not relied upon for prior art purposes with respect to the below rejections, rather they are just provided in the efforts of compact prosecution in response to Applicant’s arguments and provide references related to the argued features if Applicant were to choose to amend such argued limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of determining an available space, reserving an event space based on desired constraints, and arranging transportation for desired materials (like for example supplies or food for a meeting) from an available entity based on the reservation.
The idea of determining an available space, reserving an event space based on desired constraints, and arranging transportation for desired materials (like for example supplies or food for a meeting) from an available entity based on the reservation is a mental process as the claims recite observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Further the idea of determining an available space, reserving an event space based on desired constraints, and arranging transportation for desired materials (like for example supplies or food for a meeting) from an available entity based on the reservation is subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations. Subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations is certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental processes as well as certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract
idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical
application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or
mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or (2)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). More specifically as recited in the claims:
It is noted that the Examiner has bolded and underlined the additional elements in the claims for distinction. Limitations not bolded and underlined are considered part of the abstract idea.
Claim 4. A facility use management method to manages use of various facilities by a user through a management server, the method comprising:
generating recommendation data including data on a facility that matches a preference of the user and is available for the user, based on various data stored in a storage device, the various data including registration data on the user, hobby data on the user, registration data on the various facilities, and use situation data on the various facilities;
transmitting the recommendation data to a user terminal;
determining whether reservation request data is received from the user terminal or not after transmission of the recommendation data, the reservation request data including data on a requested facility wished by the user, and an available time slot of the requested facility;
making a reservation of the requested facility covering the available time slot, based on the reservation request data, when it is determined that the reservation request data is from the user terminal;
determining, upon receipt of the reservation request data from the user terminal, whether the reservation request data includes delivery request data or not, the delivery request data including data on a requested material wished by the user for use at the requested facility during the reservation, data on a delivery destination of the requested material, and data on a delivery time slot for the requested material;
generating a delivery arrangement instruction for delivering the requested material from a material center to the delivery destination, based on the delivery request data, when it is determined that the reservation request data includes the delivery request data;
transmitting the delivery arrangement instruction to the material center;
generating, for each of a plurality of delivery robots, a state report comprising an external state of each delivery robot based on external recognition data from a camera of each delivery robot,
generating material center operation situation data based on the state reports of each delivery robot;
upon receipt of the delivery arrangement instruction at the material center, selecting a delivery robot for delivering the requested material, from among a plurality of delivery robots, based on the delivery arrangement instruction and the material center operation situation data;
transmit a delivery execution instruction to the selected delivery robot;
controlling a drive device of the selected delivery robot to perform automated driving of the selected delivery robot from the material center to the delivery destination with the requested material, based on the delivery execution instruction.
As per claim 4, the claims recite determining an available space according to constraints, storing information, reserving an event space based on desired constraints, determining an availability to provide transportation of an item to a location (for example by looking at which entity is free or not busy), arranging transportation for desired materials (like for example supplies or food for a meeting) from an available entity based on the reservation, and providing instructions to entity on the particulars like location of where the drive the item or material to.
These are limitations a human or humans could reasonably and practically perform. The fact that these limitations that a human operator could reasonably and practically perform are instead recited as broadly being performed by “a server”, information is stored in a “device”, a user provides constraints, inputs, or receives information by a “terminal”, the entity providing the material is “robots” by a “drive device”, instead of a user driving the material this is “automated” by the robots, and instead of a user looking around and determining visually which entity is not busy and available to transport this being done by “camera” data merely results in “apply it.”
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, rather in the claim instead the additional limitations provided above recite only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” The claims do not recite improvements to computers like camera processing, robots, servers, or terminals rather here they are just being used to broadly implement the above abstract idea.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite the above broad limitations of being performed by “a server”, information is stored in a “device”, a user provides constraints, inputs, or receives information by a “terminal”, the entity providing the material is “robots” by a “drive device”, instead of a user driving the material this is “automated” by the robots, and instead of a user looking around and determining visually which entity is not busy and available to transport this being done by “camera” data, merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above in the practical application step.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
13. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- a communication device configured to communicate with the management
server and the material center (see claim 1)
- a control device configured to control the drive device (see claim 1)
- a communication device configured to communicate with the management
server and the parking lot (see claim 2)
- a control device configured to control the drive device (see claim 2)
-wherein the control device of the selected mobile is configured to,
upon receipt of the transportation execution instruction, control the drive device of the selected mobile to perform automated driving from the parking lot to the pickup point and automated driving control from the pickup point to the requested facility, based on the transportation execution instruction (see claim 2)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
From review of the specification the following appears to be the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function and equivalents thereof:
-communication device- see paragraph 0016, cited herein: "The management
server 10 communicates with configuration elements, such as the leisure facility 20 and the user terminal 30, via a network (not illustrated)."
- a control device (see paragraph 0021, cited herein: "The control device is a
computer for controlling the drive device."
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
12. Claim(s) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0033079) further in view of Vestal et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0365258).
As per claim 1, Porter et al. teaches A facility use management system to manage use of various facilities by a user, comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: systems and methods to predict availability of retail spaces in shopping malls).
a management server including a data processing device and a storage device in which various data is stored, (see paragraphs 0055, 0140, and 0150-0151, Examiner’s note: teaches a server and the functions of Porter being implemented by software running on a computer).
the various data including registration data on the user, hobby data on the user, registration data on the various facilities, and use situation data on the various facilities; (see paragraph 0065, 0086-0087, 0074, and 0097, Examiner’s note: subscription service along with information on various facilities(see paragraphs 0065, 0086-0087, and 0097), e.g. registered users. Collects user information in a profile which is used to give preference in future transactions, further teaches this is pop up retail marketspace which can include the broad recitation of hobby data (see paragraph 0074). It is further noted that, while the Examiner mapped to the limitations in the efforts of compact prosecution, the limitation starting with wherein does not limit claim scope, see MPEP 2111.04).
and a user terminal operated by the user and configured to communicate with the management server; (see paragraphs 0058-0059 and 0070-0071 Examiner’s note: user interface that allows a user to communicate with the system).
and a plurality of delivery robots each including a communication device configured to communicate with the management server and the material center, a drive device, and a control device configured to control the drive device, and a camera, (see paragraph 0021, 0023, and 0039, Examiner’s note: robot includes a moving mechanism and a computer that controls operations, further communicates with a server. Further includes a camera. Further teaches the robot can collect items from retailers and deliver them to the location of the customer).
wherein each of the plurality of delivery robots is configured to generate a state report comprising an external state of each delivery robot based on external recognition data from the camera, (see paragraphs 0038, 0056, 0059, and 0075, Examiner’s note: capturing data of a robot including information around the robot with image data).
wherein the data processing device of the management server is configured to: (see paragraphs 0055, 0140, and 0150-0151, Examiner’s note: teaches a server and the functions of Porter being implemented by software running on a computer).
generate, based on the various data, recommendation data including data on facilities that match a preference of the user and are available to the user; transmit the recommendation data to the user terminal; (see paragraphs 0070-0073, Examiner’s note: providing information to a user in a space like leases to expire in the next six months or certain time period).
determine whether reservation request data is received from the user terminal or not after transmission of the recommendation data, the reservation request data including data on a requested facility wished by the user, and data on an available time slot of the requested facility; when it is determined that the reservation request data is received from the user terminal, make a reservation of the requested facility covering the available time slot, based on the reservation request data; (see paragraphs 0064, 0067, 0074, 0126, Examiner’s note: teaches establishing a short term lease of a pop up at a retail location).
determine, upon receipt of the reservation request data from the user terminal, whether the reservation request data includes delivery request data or not, the delivery request data including data on a requested material wished by the user for use at the requested facility during the reservation, data on a delivery destination of the requested material, (see paragraphs 0040 and 0047, Examiner’s note: robot picks up items delivered by user and sends them to a certain location. It is noted that the claims broadly recite reservation information which can include information requested at different times that is at some later time after it is sent is aggregated and performed by the system, which is what is taught in Porter. It is further noted that the limitation starting with wherein does not limit claim scope, see MPEP 2111.04).
when it is determined that the reservation request data includes the delivery request data, generate a delivery arrangement instruction for delivering the requested material from the material center to the delivery destination, based on the delivery request data; (see paragraphs 0040 and 0047, Examiner’s note: robot picks up items delivered by user and sends them to a certain location).
While Porter as shown above clearly teaches using robots to determine spaces available for short term rent and using the same robots to deliver information ordered within the same facility to a user requesting information, Porter does not expressly teach (1) a material center comprising a terminal, (2) a request includes and data on a delivery time slot for the requested material and (3) how the system determines which of the plurality of robots to send to perform the material pick up and drop of or more specifically as recited in the claims of and transmit the delivery arrangement instruction to the material center, wherein the terminal of the material center is configured to: generate material center operation situation data based on the state reports received from each delivery robot; upon receipt of the delivery arrangement instruction, select a delivery robot for delivering the requested material, from among the delivery robots, based on the delivery arrangement instruction and the material center operation situation data; and transmit a delivery execution instruction to the selected delivery robot, and wherein the control device of the selected delivery robot is configured to, upon receipt of the delivery execution instruction, control the drive device to perform automated driving from the material center to the delivery destination with the requested material, based on the delivery execution instruction
However, Vestal which is in the art of job management for a system of autonomous mobile robots (see abstract and title) teaches (1) a material center comprising a terminal (see paragraphs 0085-0086, Examiner’s note: server room that receives job requests from other systems).
(2) a request includes and data on a delivery time slot for the requested material (see paragraph 0032, Examiner’s note: delivery time for job).
And (3) how the system determines which of the plurality of robots to send to perform the material pick up and drop of or more specifically as recited in the claims of and transmit the delivery arrangement instruction to the material center, wherein the terminal of the material center is configured to: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: automated physical environment like an order processing facility or office building where the hob requested are handled by a fleet of mobile robots).
generate material center operation situation data based on the state reports received from each delivery robot; upon receipt of the delivery arrangement instruction, select a delivery robot for delivering the requested material, from among the delivery robots, based on the delivery arrangement instruction and the material center operation situation data; and transmit a delivery execution instruction to the selected delivery robot, and wherein the control device of the selected delivery robot is configured to, upon receipt of the delivery execution instruction, control the drive device to perform automated driving from the material center to the delivery destination with the requested material, based on the delivery execution instruction (see paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0025, 0027, and 0078, Examiner’s note: teaches determining which robots to provide transportation within a facility).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Porter et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Vestal with the motivation of providing important information in deliveries for example when a product is needed (see Vestal paragraphs 0032), providing a computer system to process different requests (see Vestal paragraphs 0085-0086), as well as providing a way to determine which robot of multiple robots to send (see Vestal paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0025, 0027, and 0078), when Porter teaches providing multiple pieces of information related to a delivery like destination and items (see paragraphs 0040 and 0047), selecting a robot where there are multiple robots for performing the functions (see paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0055-0056), and providing instructions to perform the pickup and delivery (see paragraphs 0039-000) are all known.
As per claim 4, Porter et al. teaches A facility use management method to manages use of various facilities by a user through a management server, the method comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: systems and methods to predict availability of retail spaces in shopping malls).
generating recommendation data including data on a facility that matches a preference of the user and is available for the user, (see paragraphs 0070-0073, Examiner’s note: providing information to a user in a space like leases to expire in the next six months or certain time period).
based on various data stored in a storage device, the various data including registration data on the user, hobby data on the user, registration data on the various facilities, and use situation data on the various facilities; (see paragraph 0065, 0086-0087, 0074, 0097, Examiner’s note: subscription service along with information on various facilities(see paragraphs 0065, 0086-0087, and 0097), e.g. registered users. Collects user information in a profile which is used to give preference in future transactions, further teaches this is pop up retail marketspace which can include the broad recitation of hobby data (see paragraph 0074). It is noted that this determining step only requires some sort of various data).
transmitting the recommendation data to a user terminal; (see paragraphs 0070-0073, Examiner’s note: providing information to a user in a space like leases to expire in the next six months or certain time period).
determining whether reservation request data is received from the user terminal or not after transmission of the recommendation data, the reservation request data including data on a requested facility wished by the user, and an available time slot of the requested facility; making a reservation of the requested facility covering the available time slot, based on the reservation request data, when it is determined that the reservation request data is from the user terminal; (see paragraphs 0064, 0067, 0074, 0126, Examiner’s note: teaches establishing a short term lease of a pop up at a retail location).
determining, upon receipt of the reservation request data from the user terminal, whether the reservation request data includes delivery request data or not, the delivery request data including data on a requested material wished by the user for use at the requested facility during the reservation, data on a delivery destination of the requested material, (see paragraphs 0040, 0047, Examiner’s note: robot picks up items delivered by user and sends them to a certain location. It is noted that the claims broadly recite reservation information that can be requested at different times that is at some later time after it is sent it aggregated and performed by the system, which is what is taught in Porter. It is further noted that the limitation starting with wherein does not limit claim scope, see MPEP 2111.04).
generating a delivery arrangement instruction for delivering the requested material from a material center to the delivery destination, based on the delivery request data, when it is determined that the reservation request data includes the delivery request data; (see paragraphs 0040, 0047, Examiner’s note: robot picks up items delivered by user and sends them to a certain location).
While Porter as shown above clearly teaches using robots to determine spaces available for short term rent and using the same robots to deliver information ordered within the same facility to a user requesting information, Porter does not expressly teach (1) a request includes and data on a delivery time slot for the requested material and (2) how the system determines which of the plurality of robots to send to perform the material pick up and drop of or more specifically as recited in the claims of transmitting the delivery arrangement instruction to the material center; generating, for each of a plurality of delivery robots, a state report comprising an external state of each delivery robot based on external recognition data from a camera of each delivery robot, generating material center operation situation data based on the state reports of each delivery robot; upon receipt of the delivery arrangement instruction at the material center, selecting a delivery robot for delivering the requested material, from among a plurality of delivery robots, based on the delivery arrangement instruction and the material center operation situation data; transmit a delivery execution instruction to the selected delivery robot; up, controlling a drive device the selected delivery robot to perform automated driving of the selected delivery robot from the material center to the delivery destination with the requested material, based on the delivery execution instruction.
However, Vestal which is in the art of job management for a system of autonomous mobile robots (see abstract and title) teaches
(1) a request includes and data on a delivery time slot for the requested material (see paragraph 0032, Examiner’s note: delivery time for job).
And (2) how the system determines which of the plurality of robots to send to perform the material pick up and drop of or more specifically as recited in the claims of and transmitting the delivery arrangement instruction to the material center (see abstract, Examiner’s note: automated physical environment like an order processing facility or office building where the hob requested are handled by a fleet of mobile robots).
generating, for each of a plurality of delivery robots, a state report comprising an external state of each delivery robot based on external recognition data from a camera of each delivery robot, generating material center operation situation data based on the state reports of each delivery robot; upon receipt of the delivery arrangement instruction at the material center, selecting a delivery robot for delivering the requested material, from among a plurality of delivery robots, based on the delivery arrangement instruction and the material center operation situation data; transmit a delivery execution instruction to the selected delivery robot; up, controlling a drive device the selected delivery robot to perform automated driving of the selected delivery robot from the material center to the delivery destination with the requested material, based on the delivery execution instruction (see paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0025, 0027, and 0078, Examiner’s note: teaches determining which robots to provide transportation within a facility).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Porter et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Vestal with the motivation of providing important information in deliveries for example when a product is needed (see Vestal paragraphs 0032) as well as providing a way to determine which robot of multiple robots to send (see Vestal paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0025, 0027, and 0078), when Porter teaches providing multiple information related to a delivery like destination and items (see paragraphs 0040 and 0047), selecting a robot where there are multiple robots for performing the functions (see paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0055-0056), and providing instructions to perform the pickup and delivery (see paragraphs 0039-000) are all known.
13. Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0033079) further in view of Vestal et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0365258) further in view of Ramanujam (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2015/0339928) further in view of Douillard et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0364717) further in view of Li et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0295216)
As per claim 2, Porter in view of Vestal et al. does not expressly teach
a parking lot comprising a terminal; and a plurality of mobiles, each of which include a communication device configured to communicate with the management server and the parking lot, a drive device, and a control device configured to control the drive device, and a camera, wherein each of the plurality of mobiles is configured to generate a state report comprising an external state of each mobile based on external recognition data from the camera, wherein, upon receipt of the reservation request data from the user terminal, the data processing device of the management server determine whether the reservation request data includes transportation request data or not, wherein the transportation request data includes data on a pickup point wished by the user, and a pickup time slot wished by the user, wherein the data processing device of the management server is configured to: when it is determined that the reservation request data includes the transportation request data, generate a transportation arrangement instruction for providing the user with transportation from the pickup point to the requested facility, based on the transportation request data; and transmit the transportation arrangement instruction to the parking lot, wherein terminal of the parking lot is configured to: generate parking lot operation situation data based on the state reports received from each mobile; upon receipt of the transportation arrangement instruction, select a mobile for transportation of the user from among the mobiles, based on the transportation arrangement instruction and the parking lot operation situation data; and transmit a transportation execution instruction to the selected mobile, and wherein the control device of the selected mobile is configured to perform, upon receipt of the transportation execution instruction, control the drive device of the selected mobile to perform automated driving from the parking lot to the pickup point and automated driving control from the pickup point to the requested facility, based on the transportation execution instruction.
However, Ramanujam which is in the art of autonomous vehicles in a taxi service (See abstract) teaches a parking lot; (see paragraphs 0064, 0071-0072, Examiner’s note: autonomous vehicles in a parking lot.
and a plurality of mobiles, each of which include a communication device configured to communicate with the management server and the parking lot, a drive device, and a control device configured to control the drive device, (see paragraphs 0014, 0016, 0064,0103, Examiner’s note: controlling the driving of the autonomous vehicle)
and a camera, wherein each of the plurality of mobiles is configured to generate a state report comprising an external state of each mobile based on external recognition data from the camera, (see paragraphs 0096, 0098-0099, and 0103, Examiner’s note: using camera data to control the vehicle)
wherein, upon receipt of the reservation request data from the user terminal, the data processing device of the management server determine whether the reservation request data includes transportation request data or not, wherein the transportation request data includes data on a pickup point wished by the user, and a pickup time slot wished by the user, (see paragraphs 0014-0016, 0028, 0031, Examiner’s note: providing information to provide transportation to and from a location. It is noted that the claims broadly recite reservation information that can be requested at different times that is at some later time after it is sent it aggregated and performed by the system, which is what is taught in Porter.).
wherein the data processing device of the management server is configured to: (see paragraphs 0037 and 0043-0044, Examiner’s note: server of the system that can have multiple networked devices and modules)
when it is determined that the reservation request data includes the transportation request data, generate a transportation arrangement instruction for providing the user with transportation from the pickup point to the requested facility, based on the transportation request data; and transmit the transportation arrangement instruction to the parking lot, (see paragraphs 0014-0016, 0028, 0031, and 0064, Examiner’s note: providing information to provide transportation to and from a location, where vehicles may be waiting in a parking lot).
generate parking lot operation situation data based on the state reports received from each mobile; upon receipt of the transportation arrangement instruction, select a mobile for transportation of the user from among the mobiles, based on the transportation arrangement instruction; (see paragraphs 0016, Examiner’s note: selecting a vehicle based on the request and the location data).
and transmit a transportation execution instruction to the selected mobile, and wherein the control device of the selected mobile is configured to perform, upon receipt of the transportation execution instruction, control the drive device of the selected mobile to perform automated driving from the parking lot to the pickup point and automated driving control from the pickup point to the requested facility, based on the transportation execution instruction. (see paragraphs 0014-0016, 0028, 0031, and 0064, Examiner’s note: providing information to provide transportation to and from a location, where vehicles may be waiting in a parking lot).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Porter in view of Vestal et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Ramanujam with the motivation of providing a way to provide a user with transportation to a location of interest through use of autonomous vehicles (See Ramanujam paragraphs 0014-0016, 0028, 0031, and 0064), when using autonomous vehicles to provide information like items of interest are known (see Porter paragraphs 0039-0040) is known.
While Ramanujam clearly teaches distributed computing (see paragraphs 0043-0044) Porter in view of Vestal et al. in view of Ramanujam does not expressly (1) teach distributed computing where one computer element is in a parking lot or more specifically as recited in the claims a parking lot comprising a terminal and wherein terminal of the parking lot is configured to: and (2) determining location based on camera data or more specifically as recited in the claims and the parking lot operation situation data
However, Douillard et al. which is in the art of autonomous vehicles (see abstract) teaches (2) determining location based on camera data or more specifically as recited in the claims and the parking lot operation situation data (see paragraph 0055, Examiner’s note: establishing location or orientation with cameras. ).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Porter in view of Vestal et al. in view of Ramanujam with the aforementioned teachings from Douillard et al. with the motivation of providing another known way to determine location through another type of sensor (See Doulliard et al. paragraph 0055), when selecting a vehicle based on a location (see Ramanujam paragraphs 0014-0016, 0028, 0031, and 0064) and a vehicle including a camera are both known (see Ramanujam paragraphs 0096, 0098-0099, and 0103).
Porter in view of Vestal et al. in view of Ramanujam in view of Douillard et al. does not expressly teach (1) distributed computing where one computer element is in a parking lot or more specifically as recited in the claims a parking lot comprising a terminal and wherein terminal of the parking lot is configured to:
However, Li et al. which is in the art of parking lot management (See abstract) teaches (1) distributed computing where one computer element is in a parking lot or more specifically as recited in the claims a parking lot comprising a terminal and wherein terminal of the parking lot is configured to: (see Figures 3a-3b and paragraphs 0036 and 0054-0055, Examiner’s note: teaches distributed computing where some information is processed at the parking lot and some is at the central server and that different arrangements of what devices processes the information are allowed. Examiner further notes the claims are recited at such a high level of generality there is no reason currently claimed why a device being in a parking lot rather than for example another location is important or distinct from general distributed computing (e.g. having multiple computers perform functions at different locations). The Examiner has mapped to the claim limitation of it being in a parking lot in an efforts of compact prosecution. If Applicant were to amend the claims to recite more specific data processing device elements or communications like NFC, beacon, RFID components etc. that could not be interpreted as mere processing information over a distributed computing network and just the location for one of the devices happens to be a parking lot in view of Applicant’s claims, the current prior art rejection would be withdrawn, however it is important to note that such amendments must have support in the written description as originally filed).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Porter in view of Vestal et al. in view of Ramanujam further in view of Douillard et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Li et al. with the motivation of using a known location to place a computer as you need to place a computer at some location whether it’s a parking lot, office building, data center, remote location, etc. (See Li et al. Figures 3a-3b and paragraphs 0036 and 0054-0055), when processing transportation for users across multiple devices in distributed computing and the mobile is launched from a parking lot location (see Ramanujam paragraphs 0043-0044, 0064, and 0071-0072) are all known.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kajiwara et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0056483) teaches a system for providing reservations and transportation to a location (see abstract)
Martenis (United States Patent Number: US 9,552,564) teaches an automotous delivery network for delivery of items (see abstract)
Ingraselino et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0138668) teaches on demand transportation of objects (see abstract and title)
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users.
To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626